1) Is there dialogue missing that explains the weirdness regarding Lt. Ilia? The crew get all weird when it is announced that she is Deltan and then we get that "oath of celibacy" statement...yet it has no context. Even in expanded versions of the film where she talks about "sexually immature species" its not really explained what she means. Is this a hold over from the Phase II pilot that would have been expanded more in the series?

Click to expand...

The part of that scene that always confused me was when Kirk left the bridge, and Decker tells Ilia "I don't think the Captain meant anything personal." What is he talking about? All I remember Kirk saying to her more or less is that he had the utmost confidence in her.

The part of that scene that always confused me was when Kirk left the bridge, and Decker tells Ilia "I don't think the Captain meant anything personal." What is he talking about? All I remember Kirk saying to her more or less is that he had the utmost confidence in her.

Click to expand...

The novelization clarifies that Kirk had instantly regretted adding, "And in you too, Lieutenant", in response to Decker's comment that Kirk had "the utmost confidence" in him. Kirk was irritated by Decker's words, and they were both trying to deflect Ilia from asking outright why Decker was no longer captain.

I would however assume that, since Vulcan never appeared in it's theatrical TMP incarnation again (outside of the Spock: Reflections comic at night), that the 2001 Director's Cut is the version currently "in continuity". IIRC, the CG Vulcan landscape from TMP-DE cropped up again in ENT: "Home"?

RE: the ranks thing, I've always rationalized it as being another holdover from Phase II. I think the concept of Phase II was that Kirk had been an Admiral for a couple years, but his retaking command of the Enterprise was an actual reduction back to Captain (a specially arranged reduction) because he was fed up flying a desk and Admiral Nogura was sympathetic to Kirk's need to be "out there". Kirk being held up as this great hero following the return of the Enterprise from its five year mission was also probably a part of it; if Kirk doesn't want "rank" but rather wants a ship, then public opinion would likely sway towards giving him his damn ship back. So being reduced to Captain makes sense in that context. I can imagine Admiral Nogura sighing, raising his hands in the air, and saying "Okay Kirk, if you want her back badly enough..... you'll have to be demoted of course....."

Decker on the other hand is harder to rationalize. If he's the captain, then he's a captain. He can be temporarily assigned as first officer, but he'll always have the rank of captain and the sleeve stripes to prove it. But we never actually see Decker with captain's stripes, only commander. So what conclusions can we draw? I think Decker wasn't officially a captain yet. He was involved in Enterprise's refit, and he had basically been tapped to be captain following Kirk's recommendation of him to that role, but the papers hadn't quite gone through yet..... so when Kirk steps in and says, "They gave her back to me Will", Decker just has to accept that his promotion hasn't gone through. It also adds an extra dimension to the conflict between him and Kirk.

But we never actually see Decker with captain's stripes, only commander. So what conclusions can we draw? I think Decker wasn't officially a captain yet. He was involved in Enterprise's refit, and he had basically been tapped to be captain following Kirk's recommendation of him to that role, but the papers hadn't quite gone through yet.

Click to expand...

An interesting idea but not actually true. And the proof is in TMP itself. When Decker makes his first appearance, he's wearing one of the alternate jumpsuits that has the rank epaulets on the shoulders rather than at the wrists. He's still wearing this uniform when he meets Kirk in the corridor just after the transporter accident. Kirk wears a similar uniform near the film's end. Both uniforms clearly indicate the rank of captain. It's not clear when Decker was actually promoted, but he was clearly a captain by 2273.

^Now that I mention it, one thing that's always struck me as somewhat humorous is that we never see Decker sitting in the captain's chair at any point during the film. He's shown standing near it for a few seconds as Kirk and Spock leave the bridge to confront what turns out to be the Ilia probe. But he never sits there while on screen. I don't know if that was done intentionally, but it's yet another way of driving home the point that the Enterprise isn't his ship any longer.

That is quite funny. I had forgotten about the alternative uniforms. You're right, Decker was clearly visually identified as a captain when we first meet him, although I still think my theory is right that "the price" Kirk must pay for wanting his old ship back (and everything we know about in the Phase II series format documents assumes that Kirk is indeed a captain for the majority of the episodes, not an admiral-acting-as-captain) is a permanent reduction in rank and being stripped of the assumed privileges thereof. Basically, exactly what happens to him at the end of Star Trek IV, but self-inflicted rather than being as a result of an official hearing into his conduct.

Of course, we must further assume that if Kirk did command a second five year mission between TMP and TWOK, and the ending of TMP certainly implies this, then his 'permanent' reduction to captain for a further five years was in itself only temporary, and a loophole was used to bump him back to admiral upon his second return to Earth.

You're right, Decker was clearly visually identified as a captain when we first meet him, although I still think my theory is right that "the price" Kirk must pay for wanting his old ship back (and everything we know about in the Phase II series format documents assumes that Kirk is indeed a captain for the majority of the episodes, not an admiral-acting-as-captain) is a permanent reduction in rank and being stripped of the assumed privileges thereof.

Click to expand...

I agree with this and don't believe Kirk would've been allowed to command Enterprise again without making significant concessions. The conversation between Kirk and Nogura is something I've always wanted to see or read. If their meeting did last only three minutes, one wonders exactly what was said between the two if Kirk came out on top.

Lance said:

Of course, we must further assume that if Kirk did command a second five year mission between TMP and TWOK, and the ending of TMP certainly implies this, then his 'permanent' reduction to captain for a further five years was in itself only temporary, and a loophole was used to bump him back to admiral upon his second return to Earth.

Click to expand...

Several non-cannon sources suggest that the admiralty was reorganized in the years leading up to TWOK because of several mistakes by Starfleet Intelligence, including a botched mission in Klingon space. Nogura was asked to resign, with Morrow taking his place. Kirk was returned to the admiralty and placed in charge of Starfleet Academy. Eventually, Enterprise was placed under Spock's command and assigned to the Academy. Whether this was a move engineered by Kirk to keep the Enterprise within his jurisdiction or something Spock requested so that he could continue to serve under Kirk isn't known.

Regarding the Ilia character and Deltans in general, I'd like to propose an alternate explanation: Gene Roddenberry was a horndog. In the 1960's, he was restricted a bit by TV censors. In the late 1970's, he felt he would have much more freedom. So he created a species who's defining characteristic was that they have sex all the time. No doubt with the intention of depicting a wide variety of sexual encounters involving scantily clad women, many of whom would likely visit his personal casting couch to get the part. A harsh assessment? Yes. But backed up by what we know of Roddenberry's treatment of women in general.

In-universe, I'm not entirely sure how Deltan society manages to function, though. One description I read of them -- from the novelization perhaps -- says that to Deltans, sex was part of literally every interaction between people and as common as a handshake. Ok, how many people do you casually interact with in a day? How many people do you shake hands with? Imagine if literally every single one of those encounters involved you having sex with them. How would anything ever get done?

In-universe, I'm not entirely sure how Deltan society manages to function, though. One description I read of them -- from the novelization perhaps -- says that to Deltans, sex was part of literally every interaction between people and as common as a handshake. Ok, how many people do you casually interact with in a day? How many people do you shake hands with? Imagine if literally every single one of those encounters involved you having sex with them. How would anything ever get done?

Click to expand...

Look up bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) on Wikipedia. They're pretty much proof of concept for this.

5) Given all of the rereleases of older material with new edits, do we know what is considered "canon" about these movies?

Click to expand...

You're mistaken about what canon is... and what it isn't. All of the versions of the film and all the edits are canon.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. In all of Richard Arnold's posts about "what is canon?" in "The Communicator", he never mentioned alternate takes and director's editions. He specified that canon was live-action, aired Trek, but this was before any director's editions came out on DVD. He did rule out extra info in novelizations, TAS, media tie-ins and live-action footage featured in tie-in computer games, "A Star Trek Adventure" at Universal, and "The Experience" rides.

But the point is that the answer to "What is canon?" is that canon is something mutable and often self-contradictory, something that can be changed and reinterpreted by its own creators. It's not some simplistic seal of approval that you can stick on something to declare it "real" once and for all so that there's no further need to think or wonder. There's always going to be a need for the audience to evaluate and choose for themselves.

In other words, what is canon is every official screen production, but what is "real" within the canon when it contradicts itself is up to the viewer's judgment. Canon is not the final, pre-emptive answer that many people want it to be.

But the point is that the answer to "What is canon?" is that canon is something mutable and often self-contradictory, something that can be changed and reinterpreted by its own creators. It's not some simplistic seal of approval that you can stick on something to declare it "real" once and for all so that there's no further need to think or wonder. There's always going to be a need for the audience to evaluate and choose for themselves.

In other words, what is canon is every official screen production, but what is "real" within the canon when it contradicts itself is up to the viewer's judgment. Canon is not the final, pre-emptive answer that many people want it to be.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Canon simply is; it's not something which must be declared by a higher authority. All of the editions of TMP are part of Star Trek canon -- at least Star Trek movie canon. Which edition is to be regarded in the viewer's mind as part of a larger body of continuity is entirely up to the viewer. Not Richard Arnold.

Canon simply is; it's not something which must be declared by a higher authority.

Click to expand...

Except when its delivered as a directive to the media tie-in licensees. When a higher authority tells the licensee what can and can't be used to inform the product being created.

Click to expand...

I think what Hober meant is that it isn't imposed on the creators of the show itself by some higher authority; the show (or the original work in whatever medium) is automatically the canon by definition. What you're talking about, a licensing department that supervises tie-in creation, is not a higher authority in comparison to the creators of the canon, but a subordinate or parallel one. They're people hired by the studio to oversee the licensed merchandise. They have approval over the tie-ins, but they're following the lead of the canon. They are not defining the canon, merely keeping track of it and helping tie-ins stay consistent with it. Whatever authority they have is on behalf of the producers, or rather, the studio.

By analogy, if the producers are like a legislature laying down the laws, the licensing department is like a federal agency responsible for ensuring the laws are followed. They're subordinate to the lawmakers. And the licensees like Pocket and IDW would be akin to, say, government contractors.

One thing I've never understood about The Motion Picture is the use of Ilia's theme at the beginning of the movie, accompanied by a black screen for the duration of it. It's a beautiful piece of music, but the inclusion just seems to draw the film out even more.

The character certainly plays a pivotal part in the film, but to that extent?

1) Why weren't more of the aliens depicted in the RecDeck scene used in other places in the film? The Rec Deck scene gives the impression of a fairly diverse crew for the Enterprise, yet once she is underway, just about all of the aliens disappear

Click to expand...

In addition to the other explanations offered, it was stated that many of the people wearing those costumes were not really actors, but well-known fans (ie. Bjo Trimble) or authors such as David Gerrold. These people were given a small part in the movie as a "thank you" for their years of support.

As to why nobody else ever wore those costumes... maybe they were constructed to fit a particular person?

In-universe, I'm not entirely sure how Deltan society manages to function, though. One description I read of them -- from the novelization perhaps -- says that to Deltans, sex was part of literally every interaction between people and as common as a handshake. Ok, how many people do you casually interact with in a day? How many people do you shake hands with? Imagine if literally every single one of those encounters involved you having sex with them. How would anything ever get done?

Click to expand...

Not all sexual acts or encounters involve going to bed/having actual intercourse.

In addition to the other explanations offered, it was stated that many of the people wearing those costumes were not really actors, but well-known fans (ie. Bjo Trimble) or authors such as David Gerrold. These people were given a small part in the movie as a "thank you" for their years of support.

As to why nobody else ever wore those costumes... maybe they were constructed to fit a particular person?

Click to expand...

It's also possible that the costumes weren't up to snuff for any lengthy screen-time duration. From what little I've seen of those masks, they make the Antican And Selay masks from The Next Generation look life-like and flexible by comparison.